Seattle - Washington Policy Center, the state’s premier public policy, independent research organization, released a new study analyzing Initiative 933, which will appear on the ballot this November. The statewide initiative builds on Oregon’s Measure 37 passed by voters two years ago. “A Citizens Guide to Initiative 933: Property Fairness Initiative” takes a section-by-section look at the wording of I-933 and examines some of the most common critiques of the initiative.
Todd Myers, Director, Center for the Environment, September, 2006
A growing trend of “property fairness” initiatives, proposals designed to increase protection for individual landowners from the rise in land-use regulation, has reached Washington state in the form of Initiative 933. The philosophy behind the initiative is similar to the thinking that underlies most environmental regulation.
John Barnes, Policy Analyst, May, 2006
It’s an age-old story. A criminal shoots someone, and then politicians propose gun-control measures that would have done nothing to prevent the shooting. On March 26, Kyle Huff killed six people at a late-night party in Seattle. Seattle mayor Greg Nickels immediately called for more regulations on guns. None of his proposals would have prevented the tragedy.
Seattle- Washington Policy Center released a new study today, "Oregon's Measure 37 Property Rights Law, Lessons from the First Eleven Months." Todd Myers, Director of the Center for Environmental Policy for WPC, evaluates the effects of Oregon's Measure 37 and provides a perspective on what Washington citizens might expect if a similar law were to pass in our state. The study is the first comprehensive look at the impact of the Measure in Oregon.
Todd Myers, Director, Center for the Environment, July, 2005
Last November, Oregon voters overwhelmingly passed Measure 37, a law requiring the state and counties either to pay landowners for lost property value when new zoning restrictions are imposed, or allow owners to operate under the rules in place when they bought the property. Supporters and opponents said Measure 37 would radically change the landscape of Oregon. The reality, however, is turning out to be less revolutionary than either side expected.
William R. Maurer, Adjunct Scholar, June, 2005
Property owners are reeling from recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court relegated the right to own property to second-class status. However, the Court's actions are inconsistent with our Constitution and denigrate the role private ownership of property plays in our system of government.
Russ Brooks & William R. Maurer, September, 2004
In March 2004, King County Executive Ron Sims proposed a series of new ordinances that, if enacted, would become some of the most restrictive regulations on the use of private property in the United States. Loosely referred to as the Critical Areas Package (CAP), these proposals have already received nationwide attention and have become the subject of heated controversy between rural landowners on one hand and county government and environmentalists on the other.
A new Policy Note from Washington Policy Center, written by William R. Maurer and Russ Brooks, addresses the negative impact that proposed Growth Management rules would have on rural landowners' property rights in King County.
In March 2004, King County Executive Ron Sims proposed a series of new ordinances that, if enacted, would become some of the most restrictive regulations on the use of private property in the United States.
Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research, August, 2003
In recent years Washington voters have approved three popular measures to ease the growth of the property tax burden government places on citizens. Each measure set progressively more stringent limitations on how much state and local elected officials could increase the basic property tax each year. The relatively easy passage of these measures indicates public support for limiting property taxes increases has remained stable over time.
Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D & Leonard C. Gilroy, AICP, Reason Public Policy Institute, April, 2003
Growth management has come to the forefront of public-policy debate at the state and local level. Concerned about the effects of both population and economic growth on their environment, citizens and their elected officials are struggling for ways to identify and mitigate the problems associated with new homes and the demand for shopping malls and office development that inevitably follows. New building growth, which usually occurs on the urban periphery, has laid the political foundation for a growing movement to restrict and further control the pace and pattern of land development. Many growth-management advocates argue that state and local land-use planning should actively shape the built environment for local citizens through zoning and various forms of development control.